Paul thought very highly of the Thessalonian Christians and commended them for their faith. Yet an issue had developed which required immediate and sharp redress: at least a few of them had quit their jobs and had ceased to work (2 Thessalonians 3:11).

Paul did not go into any detail about the situation; it would have been sufficiently well known enough both to him and to the Thessalonian Christians to whom he wrote. Paul had written much regarding eschatological matters: when and how the Lord would return and how the dead in Christ would rise first (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, 2:1-12). From this we deduce a significant interest in these “end times” matters among at least some of the Thessalonian Christians, or, at least, among some of those who came and preached among them.

As we well know even from our own time, eschatological fervor in expectations can easily run amok. The Lord Jesus, after all, could return at any moment (cf. Matthew 25:14-46, Acts 17:30-31, 1 Thessalonians 5:2). Today might be our last day on earth! The setup is made for a compelling message: if you knew today was going to be your last day on earth, how would you spend it? Then, as now, “go to work” would probably not be high on the list of things anyone would want to do in such a situation. Thus, these Thessalonian Christians might have convinced themselves the Lord Jesus would return very, very soon, and therefore going to work and making a basic living was unimportant.

We have tried to give these particular Christians the benefit of the doubt, and have tried to understand their motives charitably. We presume they were able to continue to survive thanks to the benevolence and charity of their fellow Christians. But the situation was not good: these non-working Christians proved restless. They started to meddle in the affairs of others and proved to be busybodies (2 Thessalonians 3:11).

Paul determined to address this situation very powerfully and sharply. He commanded the Thessalonian Christians to stay away from and withdraw themselves from these non-working Christians, whom Paul chastised as “walking disorderly” and not according to the tradition they received from him (2 Thessalonians 3:6). Paul would go on to describe this tradition, embodied in himself, at length: even though he could have lived off their beneficence, he and his associates instead worked in order to make money for basic necessities while preaching the Lord Jesus and ministering in their midst (2 Thessalonians 3:7-9). He did this so he would not be a burden to them, but also to give them an example (2 Thessalonians 3:9): if anyone understood how the Lord Jesus might return at any moment, it was the Apostle Paul who proclaimed such things. And yet he still labored to make money in order to provide for himself.

But it was not as if the Thessalonian Christians were ignorant of these matters. Paul reiterated an adage he had taught while he had been with them in person: if a person was not willing to work, neither should that person eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

Paul would go on to command these non-working Christians in Thessalonica to work quietly and provide food for themselves (2 Thessalonians 3:12). The Lord Jesus would indeed return one day, perhaps very soon; they were to be prepared for His return, but they also needed to continue to carry on with daily life in healthy and productive ways. At the same time, Paul also commanded all the Christians of Thessalonica to not prove weary in doing good (2 Thessalonians 3:13): they should continue to love one another as Jesus had loved them and also should provide for one another in need. Yet they also should maintain no company with any “Christian” among them who would not respect what Paul had to say in his letter so the wayward might become ashamed of themselves: they should not treat them as enemies but should warn them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15).

We can only hope the wayward, non-working Christians in Thessalonica repented and went back to work. But we can tell similar concerns would continue to exist among the early Christians, as can be seen from the witness of the anonymous author of the Didache toward the end of the first century:

But let every one that comes in the name of the Lord be received, and afterward you shall prove and know him; for you shall have understanding right and left. If he who comes is a wayfarer, assist him as far as you are able; but he shall not remain with you, except for two or three days, if need be. But if he wills to abide with you, being an artisan, let him work and eat; but if he has no trade, according to your understanding see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. But if he wills not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that you keep aloof from such (Didache 12:1-5).

The concern proves understandable: early Christians did very well at providing for those who were in need. They would likely err on the side of giving. This situation provided opportunities for the indolent and lazy to take advantage of this benevolent disposition by staying with Christians and subsisting on their hospitality for quite some time. Christians needed to prove as shrewd as serpents while remaining as innocent as doves; if a Christian remained among them, and could work but would not do so, such was a problem requiring chastisement and rebuke.

We go in depth to explain the situation in which Paul set forth 2 Thessalonians 3:10, and the further historical witness of the Didache 12:1-5, in order to properly contextualize Paul’s adage. We feel compelled to do so since these days “if a person is not willing to work, neither should they eat” has easily been made into a slogan and often cited and used to justify reductions in provisions for the disabled, poor, and indigent.

What Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 should remain true for Christians: if a Christian is not willing to work, then that Christian should not eat. We should remember how Paul was speaking to Christians about fellow Christians. He did not want the love and hospitality shared among Christians to facilitate the indolence, laziness, and meddling which was taking place among the Thessalonian Christians. He would later echo similar concerns about younger widows to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:11-15.

We can understand an application of what Paul said about Christians to people in the world in general. We can affirm that those who can work, should work, so they might be able to make a living. While our work has been cursed with futility thanks to sin (cf. Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 8:19-21), the concept of work itself is not inherently cursed. God commissioned Adam to keep and tend the Garden of Eden before sin entered the world (Genesis 2:15). The Preacher rightly commended participating in one’s work with all one’s might while one is able to do so and enjoy it as the portion God has given us in this life under the sun (Ecclesiastes 9:10). “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop” is an old adage for a reason, and therefore we do well to encourage people to work and make a living.

At the same time, Christians must be careful lest they go well beyond what Paul wrote or intended with what he said, and become cruel and inhumane in ways which would prove just as disobedient to the ways of the Lord Jesus as those who prove lazy and indolent in not working. We must insist upon how Paul’s concern was with those who had capacity but not volition: he condemned those who were not willing to work to not eat in 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Paul therefore did not have in mind in any, way, shape, or form those who did not have the capacity to work, whether because of age or disability. Similarly, Paul did not reduce the situation to “if anyone does not have a job, they should not eat”: his rebuke came to those who were not willing to work, not simply those who did not have a job. Many prove willing to work but have challenges finding gainful employment for a whole host of reasons.

Paul, therefore, chastised and rebuked a very particular situation: those who were fully capable of working, but deliberately chose not to do so, living off the benevolence and hospitality of their fellow Christians. Paul was not giving any justification for refusing support for Christians with chronic illnesses, disabilities, temporary unemployment, or who were very young or rather old. Paul, as well as the anonymous author of the Didache, wanted to make sure Christian benevolence and hospitality were not being abused. It might well horrify them to imagine their words being used to justify not providing any assistance to those who desperately needed it.

If Christians are going to insist upon those who are not willing to work should not eat, then Christians should prove just as eager, if not more so, to insist upon the ability of those who are willing to work and do so to be able to eat. Throughout the New Testament, it was understood the daily wage for a laborer was a Roman denarius or its equivalence (e.g. Matthew 20:1-16). As far as we could tell, a single denarius could purchase enough bread, wine, and oil for a small family, with perhaps a little left over. It would seem a family could be supported and maintained in a small apartment with life’s basics on a denarius a day. Paul could therefore well expect a Christian to find a job as a day laborer and to be able to make enough for basic provisions. For many reasons, a lot of jobs today do not provide sufficient payment, on their own, to provide for the basic needs of one person, let alone an entire family. Christians should find this situation as outrageous and as much a travesty as they do those who prove indolent and lazy and yet make a living on the government’s dime. Sure, indeed; if a person is not willing to work, they should not eat. But if a person is not only willing to work, but also is actually working a full-time job, then they should eat: the wages from that employment, no matter how base, should be sufficient to provide for the basic necessities of life without additional assistance. And if those wages are insufficient in and of themselves, Christians have no business or right condemning or refusing the additional assistance which might be given to those poor workers.

Thus, indeed, Paul sharply and strongly both commanded faithful, working Christians to have little association with and withdraw from those wayward, non-working Christians, and exhorted those wayward, non-working Christians to follow the example Paul set for them and to work quietly so they might be able to provide for themselves. We do well to continue to exhort Christians who can work to do so, and to have little to do with Christians who could work but do not. We must be careful lest Paul’s dictate about working and eating becomes used as a cudgel with which to beat down and further oppress the poor and downtrodden. May we all seek to work quietly and provide for ourselves, may work pay sufficient wages to facilitate that provision, and may we continue to seek to do good to all people, especially to those in the household of faith, and all to the glory of God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry